International Terrorism as a European Crime: The Policy Rationale for Criminalization

International Terrorism as a European Crime: The Policy Rationale for Criminalization
Saul, Ben
2003-01-01 00:00:00
Ben Saul 1 International Terrorism as a European Crime: The Policy Rationale for Criminalization Following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, military responses have become entrenched as the international community’s preferred response to terrorist activity. Law enforcement and criminal justice responses have taken a back seat in the global ‘war on terror’, beginning with the pursuit of Al-Qaeda and the ousting of the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2002, through to targeted assassinations of suspected terrorists in Yemen in November 2002 and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. States such as China, Israel and Russia have taken advantage of this shift by characterizing various forms of domestic political opposition as terroristic and reacting with military force. One consequence of the proliferation of military responses has been a failure by the international community to fix an appropriate and durable boundary between military and criminal justice responses to terrorist activity. It may well be legally difficult to determine when a terrorist act crosses the threshold of an armed attack, thereby authorizing the use of force in self-defence. Under the law of armed conflict, such a determination will depend on the nature and scale of the attack
http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.pngEuropean Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal JusticeBrillhttp://www.deepdyve.com/lp/brill/international-terrorism-as-a-european-crime-the-policy-rationale-for-6rL40rnIAr

International Terrorism as a European Crime: The Policy Rationale for Criminalization

Abstract

Ben Saul 1 International Terrorism as a European Crime: The Policy Rationale for Criminalization Following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, military responses have become entrenched as the international community’s preferred response to terrorist activity. Law enforcement and criminal justice responses have taken a back seat in the global ‘war on terror’, beginning with the pursuit of Al-Qaeda and the ousting of the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2002, through to targeted assassinations of suspected terrorists in Yemen in November 2002 and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. States such as China, Israel and Russia have taken advantage of this shift by characterizing various forms of domestic political opposition as terroristic and reacting with military force. One consequence of the proliferation of military responses has been a failure by the international community to fix an appropriate and durable boundary between military and criminal justice responses to terrorist activity. It may well be legally difficult to determine when a terrorist act crosses the threshold of an armed attack, thereby authorizing the use of force in self-defence. Under the law of armed conflict, such a determination will depend on the nature and scale of the attack